NOVEMBER 2022

VOlUME 05 ISSUE 11 NOVEMBER 2022
Imprisonment for Civil Debt (Gizjeling) in Indonesian Praxis Tax Law Enforcement
F.C. Susila Adiyanta
Faculty of Law, Diponegoro University – Semarang, Indonesia
DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v5-i11-23

Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT

Gizjeling, imprisonment for civil debt, is one of tax collection instruments. The gizjeling institution in Indonesia was once frozen by the Supreme Court which was followed by Directorate General of Taxes (DGT). In other situation, for the interest of the state in the bad debts collection by the banking debtors during the economic crisis of 2000, the Supreme Court issued new regulation of gizjeling implementation. At the same time, DGT uses gizjeling for tax collection facilities against incompliant taxpayer. This research problem focused on the juridical construction of gizjeling as instruments of tax debt collection, and validity of juridical considerations of the use of aforementioned instrument in the praxis of tax law enforcement in Indonesia. Administrative law point of view brought conclusion that juridical construction of gijzeling is a government punitive form and is the last used means. In tax law enforcement praxis, the basis of the validity of juridical considerations of gijzeling is to provide deterrent effect and psychological compulsion to the taxpayer to pay off the tax arrears. It's strongly recommended that tax law enforcement should prioritize persuasive approach rather than gizjeling as physical coercion. Furthermore the government should encourage public participation with a communicative action model.

KEYWORDS:

gizjeling, Indonesia, tax collection instruments

REFERENCES

1) Ancok, Djamaludin. 1995. ”Pajak, Law Enforcement, dan Keadilan: Keadilan Pembagian Beban Pajak Dalam Kaitannya Dengan Kesadaran Wajib Pajak” (Taxes, Law Enforcement, and Justice: Justice Distribution of Tax Expenses In Relation With Taxpayer Awareness), a National Seminar Paper in Tax Law Enforcement and Justice Distribution of Tax Expenses Seminar, Faculty of Law of Undip, Semarang, d. 25 September 1995, p. 6,

2) Aruna, Dian Citra, Jaya, Tresno Eka, and Megawati, Corry. 2011. The Influances Of Tax Addiction in Admission Letter And Enforcement Letter On Tax Delay Of Payment Flow :Case Study In Tax Office Directorate General Of Taxation West Jakarta Territory, The 3rd International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences, April 2, 2011 Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University, Proceedings- Organization and Social Context

3) Boll, Karen. 2016. Deciding on Tax Evasion –Front Line Discretion and Constrains. Journal of Organisation Ethnography, Vol. 4 No. 2. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2046-6749, DOI 10.1108 / JOE-07-2014-0018, p. 194

4) Bovi, Maurizio and Cerquiti, Roy. 2014. A Quantitative View on Policymaker,s View Goal, Intsitution and Tax Evasion, Qual Quant (2014) 48:1493-1510, Online Publishing: 3 May 2013, © Springer Science + Business Media Dordrecht, 2013

5) Cuza, Alexandru Ioan. 2014. Analisys Legal Instruments for Preventing and Fighting Tax Evasion in some European Legal Systems. Journal of Criminal Investigation, ISSUE 2/2014

6) Damayanti, Theresia Woro. 2012. Changes on Indonesia Tax Culture, is There A Way? Studies Through Theory of Planned Behaviour. International Revereed Research Journal, www.researchersworld.com-vol.-III, issue, IV(1), October 2012 (8)

7) Gilboa, David. 2015. Punishment Justifiable as a Quasi Tax. Economics and Philosophy, No. 35. 2015. 10, 1017 / S026626711500019X, journals.cambridge.org/eap,© Cambridge University Press

8) Hartl, Barbara, Eva Hofmann, Katharina Gangl. 2015. Does The Sole Describtion of Tax Authorities Affect Tax Evasion? The Impact of Described Coercive and Legitimate Power, Power PlosOne/DOI:1731/journal.pone.123355, April 29, 2015

9) Lanis, Roman, Grant Richardson, and Grantley Taylor. 2017. Board of Director Gender and Corporate Tax Aggressiveness: An Empirical Analysis. J Bus Ethics 144:577–596, DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2815-x, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht, 2015

10) Lukman, Marcus. 1996. Eksistensi peratruran Kebijaksanaan Dalam Bidang Perencanaan dan Pelaksanaan Rencana Pembangunan di Daerah Indonesia Serta Dampaknya Terhadap pembangunan Materi Hukum Tertulis Nasional, Disertasi, Fakultas Pasca Sarjana Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung.

11) Lumbantoruan, Sihol. 1996. Ensiklopedi Perpajakan Indonesia. Jakarta: Erlangga Publishers. P. 316

12) Luttmer, Erzo FP and Singhal, Monica. 2014. Tax Morale. Journal of Economics Perspectives Vol.28 No.4.

13) Mihu, Stefan. 2011. Reforming The Tax Code: Modern Principles of Taxation. Economic, Management, and Financial Markets Vol. 6(1) 2011, ISSN 1842-3191

14) Mustafa, Bachsan. 1998. Pengantar Hukum Administrasi Negara. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bhakti.

15) Panggabean, Henri. 2001. Fungsi Mahkamah Agung Dalam Praktek Sehari-hari. Jakarta: Sinar Harapan.

16) Pfeifer, Michael G. and Yoon, Sae Jin. 2016. The Ethical Limits of Tax Planning, Trusts and Trustees, Vol. 22, No. 1, February 2016, Oxford University Press p.162

17) Priyambodo, Dadut. 2000. Paksa Badan atau Krisis Lagi, Kompas Daily, dated on 11 October 2000

18) Prodjodikoro, Wirjono. 1986. Asas-asas Hukum Pidana di Indonesia. Bandung: Eresco Publishers, p.82

19) Rosjidi, Muchtar. 1989. Sekitar Penyanderaan Dalam Hukum Pajak. Law and Development Magazine No.3 June of 1989, p. 242.

20) Saputra, M. Nata. 1988. Hukum Administrasi Negara. Jakarta: Rajawali.

21) Soemitro, Rochmat. 2014. Dasar-dasar Perpajakan Jilid I, II dan III. Bandung: Eresco Publisher.

22) Vallentini, Laura. 2011. Coercion and (Global) Justice. American Political Science Review, Vol. 105, No. 1, February 2011

23) Visockaitė, Audra. 2013. Ethic in Tax Administration. Societal Studies 5(3) 2013.

24) Wijk, van H.D. 1984. Hoofstrukken van Administratief Recht, 5e druk, Vuga,’S-Gravenhage, Willem Konijnenbelt.

LEGISLATION 1) TAP MPR RI No. III/ MPR/ 2000 on the Source of Law and Order of Legislation Regulations

2) UU No. 14 year 1985 about the Supreme Court

3) UU No. 19 year 1959 until then replaced by Law no. 19 of 1997 jo Law no. 19 of 2000 on the Collection of Taxes by Forced Letter.

4) UU No. 19 year 2000 on Amendment to Law no. 19 of 1997 concerning Tax Collection by Forced Letter (PPSP)

5) Perpu No. 1 year 1998 jo UU No. 4 year 1998 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Payment Obligations

6) Presidential Decree No. 44 of 1974 on the Principles of Organization of the Ministry of RI

7) PERMA No. 1 year 2000 on Gizjeling

8) Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 951 K/Sip/1974

9) Circular letter MA RI No. 2/ 1964

10) Circular letter MA No. 4/ 1975

11) Anonymous, Community SE MA RI year 1951-1978, Publisher of the Directorate of Law and Justice, Jakarta, 1975

12) Letter of Chairman of Supreme Court RI Nr. MA / Pemb / 0109/1984 dated January 11, 1984, addressed to Dirjen PUOD cq. Pj. Director of Regional Finance in Jakarta, regarding the explanation of SEMA No. 2/1964 and SEMA No. 4/1975

13) North Jakarta / East Jakarta Court Decision dated. May 27, 1974 No.1 / 1974 / Gijz

14) Director General of Taxes Circular Letter no. SE 12 / PJ.62 / 1984

VOlUME 05 ISSUE 11 NOVEMBER 2022

Indexed In

Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar Avatar